Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman?
16 July 2006 by Sean
Found this great blog posting over at reddit.com:
Well…
… unless one happens to be a Biblical Patriarch, in which case marriage equals one man and several women, or even one man, several women and free use of slave girls called concubines.
Or if one happens to be a legendary Israelite King then marriage equals one man and hundreds of women plus slave girls.
Or if one happens to be a Jew up until the tenth century, marriage could mean one man and several wives.
Much the same held in China for century upon century.
Or perhaps one happens to be one of the Toda, then marriage equals several men plus one woman. Or perhaps one is a nomadic Tibetan, then marriage equals two brothers and one woman.
16 July 2006, on 11:22 pm
Up until 1896 polygamy was openly practiced in Utah and the church of Mormon. That’s a little over 100 years ago.
17 July 2006, on 12:01 am
Y’know what’s really fun? Carry a Sharpie with you wherever you go, and when you see one of those bumper stickers you can draw a little slash mark through the equal sign.
Marriage =/= Man + Woman
17 July 2006, on 12:29 am
I carry a quiver of Sharpies, in every color of the rainbow- well, the Sharpie Rainbow anyway, wherever I go. I really should take pictures of my, um, work but that would be entirely too organized on my part.
Marriage is a government institution, so fuck your churchaholic ramblings and that lipstick-on-a-pig bigotry you call scripture!.
That’s my bumper sticker- or it would be if the letters wouldn’t have to be so little. Hard to read, see?
17 July 2006, on 3:21 am
So make it into a large banner…
17 July 2006, on 5:06 am
Speaking of gay marriage, I had an editorial published just this morning, telling off some backassward fundie who thought that the founding fathers intended a christian theocracy, and therefore homosexuality should be banned. My family’s heavily religious, I only left their church (Mormon, coincidentally), about a year ago. I didn’t tell them I was getting it published, so when they found it in the paper (Actually, when one of their church buddies found it in the paper and pointed it out to them, since my father’s hardly ever picked up the newspaper, excepting to look at the comics every Sunday). Either way, they got on me, NOT for defending homosexual’s rights, but because apparently this editorial means that I’m homosexual myself. According to them, I’m not allowed to stand up for any minority’s rights unless I belong to that minority myself. They declined to continue the debate when I asked if they’d defend black’s rights if somebody tried to pass an ammendment barring blacks from getting married. Something tells me they wouldn’t go out of their way to do so, and that scares me.
17 July 2006, on 8:17 am
That opionion piece was extremely well-written, Taylor. Kudos!
17 July 2006, on 7:04 pm
That was a very good OP on the subject.
Here’s my take on it, for anyone interested:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/07/consider-line-in-sand-drawn-support.html